[22:00:21] Okay, it's 22:00:20 GMT :)
[22:00:37] I'd like to welcome everybody to the 2003 Debian Project Leader election debate (IRC portion).
[22:00:47] My name is David B. Harris, and I'm your moderator this evening.
[22:01:03] We have all four candidates; Bdale Garbee, Branden Robinson, Martin Michlmayr, and Moshe Zadka.
[22:01:20] To give a quick rundown to those who haven't been following the announcements, the debate will proceed as thus:
[22:01:26] 1) The candidates will be asked a question, and given a time limit.
[22:01:38] 2) The candidates will be asked to post their answers.
[22:02:08] 3) If there are any questions for the candidates about their responses, ask them in #debian-dpl-discuss. If they're appropriate, you'll be asked to ask them again in here after receiving voice.
[22:02:18] 4) The candidates may, at their option, critique each others' responses.
[22:02:38] Candidates, are you all ready?
[22:02:42] yes
[22:02:46] yes
[22:02:46] dbharris: question
[22:02:47] yes
[22:02:50] BdaleGarbee: Fire away.
[22:03:02] dbharris: so, your expectation is that we'll compose offline and then paste here when the time is up and you ask us to?
[22:03:23] BdaleGarbee: You may compose it in any way you like. Personally, I prefer 'cat > /dev/null' at a shell, and then pasting my answers :)
[22:03:47] dbharris: ok, there was just enough discussion about a bot or something to be mildly confusing. I get it... and I'm ready.
[22:03:55] BdaleGarbee: No probs, the bot wasn't ready in time.
[22:04:05] Okay, first question. You have two minutes to compose your answers:
[22:04:09] If you're elected, what would you most like your term to be remembered for?
[22:05:51] 20 seconds left.
[22:06:10] Okay, candidates, post your answers.
[22:06:12] I'd like to be remembered for fulfilling some of the promise of our
[22:06:13] Constitutional system of government, for helping reduce tensions within the
[22:06:13] Project, for encouraging and staying out of the way of success, for
[22:06:13] surprising my critics with the good job I did. :)
[22:06:18] Steady progress.
[22:06:19] I want to be remembered for establishing good communication and
[22:06:19] coordination. I think that it is essential that all the coordination
[22:06:20] World peace. But like many things, this is not under the DPL's powers. If the qu
[22:06:20] estion was "how would you like your DPLhood to be remembered", my answer is "not
[22:06:21] interfering with people doing useful stuff".
[22:06:22] efforts in Debian are better coordinated than they are now. As such, I
[22:06:23] While it may be easier to see and judge individual acts, the Debian project
[22:06:24] and community is bigger than any of us, and what really matters is that we
[22:06:24] continue to make progress towards a vision. What I'm proudest of in the last
[22:06:24] year is the large number of times I was able to motivate or encourage someone
[22:06:24] or some activity in a small way.
[22:06:25] will try to do meta-coordination, as mentioned in my platform. I want to
[22:06:28] communicate between developers, users and upstream. It's vital to get
[22:06:31] everyone involved, and to coordinate all the different pieces. I'd like to
[22:06:34] motivate people.
[22:06:51] this is pretty difficult to follow, maybe the moderator should prompt each candidate in turn? :(
[22:06:52] Okay, we'll give the people in -discuss a bit to read over the answers.
[22:07:05] yes, what Branden said.
[22:07:15] Yeah, I'll do that.
[22:08:05] Okay, for the responses...
[22:08:13] Everybody /msg your responses to EElf.
[22:08:18] I'll paste them when the time's ready.
[22:08:21] acknowledged
[22:08:43] (There's just no way to do it without giving the last people a chance to modify their answers based on the really great idea the first person had ;)
[22:08:56] Okay, nobody has any questions.
[22:09:06] Would any of the candidates like to critique somebody's response?
[22:09:23] yes
[22:09:29] MosheZadka: Okay, go ahead.
[22:09:33] not I
[22:09:33] (We can get to other people in turn.)
[22:09:36] Try to keep it shortish.
[22:10:10] I feel that most of the candidates wish to be remembered for things that are largely equivalent to "World Peace", as far as their connection to the DPL's powers is.
[22:10:28] Anybody else?
[22:10:35] can we rebut that? :)
[22:10:47] Just make it quick :)
[22:10:56] If you guys want to go ahead and argue to death, that's your prerogative.
[22:10:59] (It'll be quite telling.)
[22:11:06] But you've got 10 seconds.
[22:11:08] I don't think that's an accurate reading of the other 3 statements, that's all. :)
[22:11:11]
[22:11:14] Okay, next question.
[22:11:35] You have two minutes to answer the following question:
[22:11:36] Do you see Debian as having a specific target audience now or in the future? If so, could you describe it?
[22:11:43] (Remember to /msg you responses to "EElf")
[22:13:25] Okay, 10 seconds.
[22:13:37] Last call :)
[22:13:46] I really like the way of thinking of Debian as the Universal Operating
[22:13:46] System. In the past, I thought we'd have to specialize, but with all the
[22:13:46] effort going into Debian by different people, we could truly achieve being
[22:13:46] the Universal OS. As such, there would not be one specific target
[22:13:46] audience, but several. We are certainly the OS of the community, that's
[22:13:47] for sure.
[22:13:56] I don't see Debian as having a specific target audience, no. We're the
[22:13:56] Universal Operating System. Potentially, everyone in the world is part of
[22:13:56] our audience. People who care in particular about freedom and good
[22:13:57] software make up a large proportion of our actual audience, though.
[22:14:01] No. My articulation last year of a vision of Debian as a Universal Operating
[22:14:01] System accurately suggests that I think Debian can be different things to
[22:14:01] different people. My attention to the concept of flavors this year is one
[22:14:01] way in which I think this can be instantiated usefully. Debian can and will
[22:14:01] be the sum of the things that people working on Debian want it to be, and are
[22:14:01] willing to implement.
[22:14:05] osheZadka> My hopes is that eventually, a tech support person will be asking "What version of Debian are you using?" I don't see why there is any audience which should not be using Debian.
[22:15:01] note that by saying "tech person" you do limit the audience already, however.
[22:15:12] (re MosheZadka)
[22:15:16] why was my nick cut?
[22:15:17] Anybody else have any comments :)
[22:15:22] MosheZadka: Just a bad paste, my apologies.
[22:15:28] I'd just like to observe that the Debian website advertised our OS as the Universal Operating System before Bdale made it campaign plank.
[22:15:31] ;-)
[22:15:44] This is vicious :)
[22:15:47] Okay, next question.
[22:16:02] Three minutes, do provide explanation:
[22:16:03] If you couldn't vote for yourself, for whom would you vote?
[22:17:29] just for whom I'd vote first or in which order?
[22:17:35] ie. can I mention more than one
[22:18:00] MartinMichlmayr: If you want to take the time...
[22:18:10] MartinMichlmayr: (But in the interests of brevity, I would suggest you just pick your second choice.)
[22:18:20] A little less than 60 seconds remaining.
[22:18:44] 20 seconds.
[22:19:02] 3 seconds.
[22:19:04] Okeydokey.
[22:19:05] Last call.
[22:19:19] BdaleGarbee: Just in the nick of time.
[22:19:23] I can't answer that; I think I'd climb back into a time machine and
[22:19:23] convince some more people to nominate themselves as DPL candidates.
[22:19:23] I think all of the current candidates have their good points, so I'd
[22:19:23] probably rank each of them [ 1 ]. Or maybe [ 2 ] after None of the Above.
[22:19:23] (No, I don't honestly feel that no DPL would better than any of them,
[22:19:23] though it *would* be a way to re-open the nomination period.)
[22:19:28] I would vote for Martin Michelmayr. While my platform is diametrically opposed to his, I trust that he will work with the delegates and make sure they are doing their job, and I know he has enough experience to avoid interfering where he is not wanted.
[22:19:31] My first vote would go to Bdale. I think that Bdale has a clear vision for
[22:19:31] Debian and has the reputation to actually bring his vision across. I
[22:19:31] believe that Branden has good ideas, but I fear that he won't be effective
[22:19:31] in actually implementing them. This is because his personal issues he has
[22:19:32] had with many other developers.
[22:19:36] I think any of the other candidates would be capable of holding the office,
[22:19:36] and I don't think any of them would be likely to cause the project to fall
[22:19:36] apart or anything like that if elected.
[22:19:36] I see many things in Martin's platform and his accomplishments for the project
[22:19:36] that suggest he and I consider many of the same things about the project as
[22:19:37] important, so I suspect he'd get my vote.
[22:20:12] Candidates, respond to each other if you want :)
[22:20:44] well, I certainly agree with Bdale and Moshe :-P
[22:20:59] BrandenRobinson: cop-out, dude
[22:21:06] And I'm fairly sure I will not disappoint them.
[22:21:26] * BdaleGarbee chuckles
[22:21:27] BdaleGarbee: since I was #2 behind you last year, it would be bad tactics for you to endorse me. You're not stupid. ;-)
[22:21:48] For those who are unaware, Debian's voting procedure involves ranking each candidate, 1 being the highest, 4 being the lowest.
[22:21:57] just like the real ballot
[22:22:00] You can give more than one person the same number, giving a tie in that position.
[22:22:05] dbharris: don't forget the all-important "none of the above"!
[22:22:16] So when BrandenRobinson says [ 1 ], he means "I would give the other three the same vote".
[22:22:29] Okeydokey.
[22:22:38] Everybody understood those answers; next question:
[22:22:50] 60 seconds:
[22:22:54] Why doesn't Debian offer packages that run under Windows?
[22:23:59] Okay, time's up.
[22:24:03] Why would we? Debian is about Free Software... and Windows doesn't qualify.
[22:24:05] I'm not sure I understand the questions. How would packages that run under Windows make a free OS? Certainly, if Wine achieves stability, I see no reason to package free programs that run under Wine.
[22:24:13] woops, sorry :(
[22:24:24] MosheZadka: Well, good enough. :)
[22:24:37] Actually, there are some efforts underway to do this. However, I don't
[22:24:37] think it should be officially endorsed because Debian has always stood for
[22:24:37] Free Software and we should keep it this way. Porting Debian packages to a
[22:24:37] non-free core might be useful for some people (for example those you have
[22:24:37] to use it at work), but should not be supported by the project as a whole.
[22:24:38] Instead, we should make Debian a real alternative to Windows.
[22:24:45] Branden declined to answer.
[22:24:46] what?>
[22:24:54] what was the time limit on that one!?
[22:24:57] BrandenRobinson: 60 seconds.
[22:24:59] bah
[22:25:00] BS
[22:25:05] I thought I had 2 minutets
[22:25:07] that was way too fast :-P
[22:25:13] BrandenRobinson: Sorry :)
[22:25:43] Okay, next question: (That one was unpopular. :)
[22:26:03] Two minutes for the following question:
[22:26:04] Would you have any objections with the various packages required for LSB compliance being installed as part of the base distribution?
[22:27:34] 30 seconds.
[22:27:56] 10 seconds.
[22:28:07] Okay, all the answers are in:
[22:28:11] No, not at all. I think that it is vital that Debian follows the LSB and
[22:28:11] I think it's quite sad that woody is not there yet. I will certainly
[22:28:11] encourage such efforts, however, and talk to the Stable RM.
[22:28:14] No. I'm not sure offhand what technical issues that might pose, if any, but
[22:28:14] it was fairly easy for us to achieve LSB compliance after woody shipped, and
[22:28:14] it would be a fairly strong statement of support for open standards (vs de
[22:28:14] facto standards imposed by commercial distributions) if we did something like
[22:28:15] that.
[22:28:18] It depends a lot on what that would entail in technical terms, and would also depend on which parts of the LSB we would be talking about. This question is more subtle than it appears, and deserves to be discussed in the appropriate technical forums.
[22:28:21] Another technical question, so best left up to Developer consensus.
[22:28:21] However, I'm not sure that would be a good idea, as the LSB specifies stuff
[22:28:21] like Xlib, and this could make the base system larger than it needs to be
[22:28:22] for many people's deployment goals.
[22:28:41] Feel free to critique each others' answers while we wait to make sure no further clarifications are needed.
[22:29:19] I think that having LSB compliance for what *is* in the base system would probably be an uncontroversial goal.
[22:29:31] compliant kernel, libc, etc.
[22:29:33] One clarification: it's not clear off-hand how much space LSB compliance means. I think the question should not have mented "base".
[22:29:34] the definition of "base" is a bit loose here... making sure Debian 'standard' and higher priority packages when installed constituted an LSB compliance installation might be more technically interesting.
[22:29:44] However, in generally, I think we should try to be LSB compliant.
[22:29:52] Good good.
[22:30:04] I want to critique the question: it's a silly question for a DPL debate. Any DPL who would try to use his power to force resolution here one way or another would be stupid.
[22:30:37] MosheZadka: The question, specifically, asked whether or not the candidate would have any objections to it, not whether or not they'd be willing to force the issue.
[22:30:51] MosheZadka: (That being said, I imagine there are language barriers here, so I'll try and adjust the questions to be a bit more obvious in the future.)
[22:31:00] Moving on, then.
[22:31:21] You have 3 minutes to answer the following question:
[22:31:43] Pretty much everybody agrees that a primary responsibility of the DPL is to represent Debian to the press. What steps, if any, do you believe should be taken to increase Debian's profile in technical and non-technical press? Why?
[22:33:43] 60 seconds.
[22:34:24] 20 seconds.
[22:34:48]